Nami Davidson County Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
800597038
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2014, Form 990-N 2011
Location
Nashville, TN, USA
Phone
6158914724
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Mental Health Association

Reported finances

Revenue
$426,649
Expenses
$407,673
Assets
$125,949
Liabilities
$2,702

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MATTHEW LOFTUS (PRESIDENT)
  • ROBERT GUTH (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • Ashley Blum (Executive Director)
  • Peter Bird (Interim Executive Director)
  • Robin Nobling (Executive Director-retired)

Highest reported compensation

  • Ashley Blum (Executive Director): $25,218 total reported compensation
  • Peter Bird (Interim Executive Director): $22,883 total reported compensation
  • Robin Nobling (Executive Director-retired): $20,265 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Nami - davidson county was formed to educate the public to understand mental illnesses and raise public awareness along with social and peer support and education.

What it reported doing in 2024

Nami davidson county provides direct support to persons with mental health issues through 3 free monthly support groups direct advocacy in the criminal justice and provider systems. Individuals are responded to on clinical supports housing access to care and special circumstances. Mental health issues include: schizophrenia schizoaffective disorder bipolar disorder clinical depression suicidal ideation ocd ptsd borderline personality disorder and others. Eligible individuals with lived experience can train to become speakers in our own voice a nami national signature stigma-busting program. Nami davidson has developed a new program to combat the derogatory effects of isolation for people with mental health issues. Friends supporting friends is a 3x monthly peer social engagement group established to combat isolation and build social confidence in persons with lived experience of mental health issues.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 57.5%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 60.2%; rating input score 60
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.4%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.31; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.8%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 18.1% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.8% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 57.5% of revenue deployed · 60.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $245K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $25K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 42 of 43 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 30/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 49/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 40/100.